Nice when a corporate bigwig is taken down. I've always wondered why the SPD lets an HR manager from the automotive industry reform unemployment insurance (keywords Bock and Gärtner and so on - and yes, I am aware of the auto chancellor). Will his name ever be separated from this absurd unemployment policy, or will politicians in the future still be proud of the name Hartz?
E.ON and RWE want to increase electricity prices - with flimsy justifications and, given the record profits of these companies, extremely absurd. But privatization and free-market economy are so great, everything becomes cheaper for the consumer - it's just strange that we don't notice it ...
But this will surely be dismissed again by great statisticians as mere perceived inflation.
E.ON must make gas prices transparent:
The gas supplier E.ON Hanse must, according to a preliminary assessment by the Hamburg Regional Court, disclose its price calculation. The company must prove that the three price increases since last October, totaling 25 percent, were justified, the court stated. The simple reference to the linkage of the gas price to the increased oil price is not sufficient.
Ok, no reason to cheer yet, but maybe it helps to control the rather strange gas price development.
This time with a direct attack on common sense and the bio-system: EU Commission approves import of genetically modified corn:
Controversial genetically modified corn may now be imported into EU countries as animal feed. The EU Commission made this decision unilaterally.
I'll repeat: I am actually pro-EU and see only a functioning European Union as a viable long-term path for our region. But not with an EU Commission that makes arbitrary decisions that go against common sense. And all of this only for the financial benefit of a non-European company whose sole aim is to crack the European market and dominate it just like other markets.
What lies behind the DIHK's demand for halving the basic apprentice salary and flexibilizing working hours becomes clear when you look at quotes from the DIHK chairman:
"My proposal is to introduce a nationwide basic remuneration of 270 euros," he told the newspaper "Die Welt". He justified his initiative by saying that this would allow more apprenticeships to be financed. "An apprenticeship remuneration of up to 800 euros is simply too high for many businesses."
"Working hours must be better adapted to the needs of the industries." It makes no sense that a 17-year-old restaurant specialist has to leave at 10 p.m. "if all the tables are still occupied."
This is simply about having cheap labor, but not about ensuring proper training. But these demands are not new.
And what the German economy thinks of training can be seen in the fact that the number of training positions has again decreased by 10% compared to the previous year - and thus young people have again been left without training positions, despite all the promises of the economy. Without a non-training fee for larger companies, this will not change either. But complaining that there are no trained skilled workers, the economy can do quite famously ...
Found on Telepolis: TP: Enforcement of Controlling and Ranking at All Levels:
If a critical economist had been invited to the congress, he would have probably formulated the Bertelsmann strategy as follows: Democratic decision-making and open discussion are replaced by control procedures from modern business administration. Everything is sweetened with dynamic Anglicisms from marketing babble, but often ideas from the business administration specialty of controlling are hidden behind them. Earlier, one spoke more prosaically of accounting/internal auditing, but meant the same thing: the internal control and monitoring of production processes. This is done by means of cost-benefit analysis, profit and loss accounting, budgeting, profit centers, key figures for everything and anything, etc.
My personal aversion to business administration as, in my opinion, a far too short-sighted vision of the market should be known by now. However, the connection with a rather sanctimonious acting major publishing house makes the whole thing really explosive - because such corporations primarily have their own economic interests and should therefore be kept out of educational policy discussions, especially they are definitely the wrong ones to be involved as advisors in educational policy decision-making. But in the course of the politicians' privatization frenzy, such blunders are repeatedly made - combined with the marketing lies that automatically arise from such companies to consolidate their own route (such as the survey on tuition fees cited in the text, in which the path of free study was simply excluded - and then it was claimed that students were predominantly in favor of tuition fees).
The biggest problem with this close connection to the economy - whether it's Bertelsmann in educational policy or other companies in other areas - is the lack of democratic control. Politicians are still controlled in a rudimentary way, public institutions are forced by the new information law to disclose many areas, but decision-making in private sector institutions is not subject to these controls. If politicians, for example, refer to studies from the economy, one may get to the point - that the decision is based on a study by Institute So-and-So - but one may find out nothing about the structure and actual content of the study. And thus, control by the population is bluntly circumvented.
In my opinion, given the importance of educational policy, every influence of the economy and industry must be excluded. Completely irrelevant what they demand - they have nothing to do with the political design of educational policy. But unfortunately, our politicians repeatedly sell political control to private sector institutes instead of doing the work themselves. And they are selling our future and our sovereignty as a society to the economy.
Already a bit older, but an interesting report on the dismantling of a thriving company through turbo-capitalism and greed for money.
Interesting about this is not only how the company itself was massively damaged through pure financial exploitation, so that in the end there is actually no good situation left - the effects on the environment, such as the lower business tax revenues of the city, are also interesting. A movement that we can observe in many places at the moment - companies are sold for short-term profit and then go down the drain because the new owners have no interest in the company or the employees, but only in the return on their investment. At the same time, the respective region goes down the drain as well - because the investors also have no interest in the established structures. Locusts simply have no real home.
At the same time, a good example of the fact that this stupid talk about promoting investment in the economy is exactly that - stupid talk. Our problems will not become smaller because of this, the social system will not be saved. The opposite will be the case - because the investors who are getting involved are increasingly hedge funds or private equity funds or other financial investors who just want to make a quick euro - and they are rubbing their hands at the plans of the government and the opposition (if they are to form the next government).
Locusts simply have no interest in vocational training, employee training, minimum wages and domestic production. They also have no interest in our society or our social system.
According to at least association president Otto Kentzler. And the shocking part: apparently, something this idiotic already exists:
According to the report, such a regulation already exists: in the Bavarian collective wage agreement for confectioners, it is already stipulated that for every five sick days, one vacation day will be deducted. However, the maximum "vacation loss" is limited to three days per year.
But what the illness (for which one is declared unfit for work by the doctor) has to do with recovery time (as vacation is defined) and how such a thing can go together is of course not explained.
Oh, and the fact that the rate of sickness is already at a record low does not interest this puppet from the trade association at all - why let oneself be impressed by facts and reality when one can instead unload one's populist nonsense ...
... then bring such absurd suggestions in the value-added tax discussion:
Such a step was recommended by the head of the Hamburg Institute of International Economics (HWWI), Thomas Straubhaar. According to his ideas, the value-added tax should be raised to 20 percent. The reduced tax rate of seven percent - which currently applies to food, among other things - should be completely abolished.
Clear, super idea. 20% value-added tax and abolishing the reduced rates (which would immediately be an increase in the value-added tax on staple foods and books by 13 points!) - these are the ideal suggestions to stimulate the ailing domestic consumption.
It is completely absurd - everyone seems to only have the goal of taking even more from those who have little. Or has anyone ever heard in the context of such proposals that in the course of a value-added tax increase - especially one as drastic as 13 points - unemployment benefits, minimum wages (where they exist in some industries), the amount of salaries still tax-free for employees, social assistance rates, and pensions must be increased by at least the same rate so that they can still afford a normal life?
Reducing payroll taxes is nice - but this only affects companies and employees (only if the payroll taxes for employers are not to be reduced again). Those who do not have payroll taxes (because they are not employees, or fall below the minimum rate) do not benefit from the reduction in payroll taxes. Quite apart from the fact that even with small salaries, the total payroll taxes are lower than an increase in the value-added tax on food by 13 points.
According to the opinion of such great economic experts, pensioners, the unemployed, social assistance recipients, and low-wage earners are probably just supposed to die socially acceptable ...
Your inhuman attitude disgusts me, you pseudo-experts.
Training Pact: 175,000 Apprenticeships Missing - and will consequences be drawn? No. No training levy. No pressure on companies - instead more soft talk and nonsense. And the economy's whining that they can't get qualified workers - where should they come from if no training is provided? But thanks to the social democratic government, nothing will change about this either.
Experts advocate for VAT increase - if you look at these alleged experts, you find IW director Hüther and the chief economist of Deutsche Bank. Completely neutral experts, of course. Why do these allegedly professional journalists write such nonsense? Every idiot from some employers' association or employer-affiliated institute or major bank is called an expert - but if something comes from the employees' camp, they are critics from the unions. This is how the neoliberal crap is beautifully upheld and the citizen is told where to look for his experts - regardless of whether these experts are anything but experts (I still think with horror of the mathematically completely untalented and otherwise quite incompetent financial expert Mertz) or pursue their own political agenda. That in this specific case something must be rotten with the experts should also be noticeable to the dumbest journalist: although the VAT should be increased, but of course only with accompanying measures. Look at these measures. One screams for a reduction in wage-related costs as an accompanying measure and the abolition of the solidarity surcharge - but only the latter is relevant for the consumer. And now look at what someone on social assistance or unemployment benefit II pays in solidarity surcharge - nothing. But this person still fully bears the VAT increase.
The other talks about the fact that the risk of reduced consumption must be accepted, as the advantages of reducing labor costs outweigh - because he also wants to reduce various payments. At least for both sides - at least he did not explicitly talk only from the employers' side, but presumably he simply forgot that there is also an employees' side. And here too: social assistance recipients and unemployment benefit II recipients are not relieved and get the full VAT increase.
None of the so-called experts has spoken about the fact that a VAT increase must be accompanied by an increase in social assistance and unemployment benefit II. Both accept that people who are already impoverished will be even worse off and that more people will fall below the poverty line. They act as if they were experts - but in the end they are only the henchmen of the exploiters and swindlers and want only the same thing that the employers' side has been demanding all along: to squeeze the employees even more.
VAT is the most unsocial tax we have. On the one hand, it is only relevant for consumers, and indeed for domestic consumers. On the other hand, it is based on consumption - and this can of course not fall below a certain level, because everyone has to live and has to pay for it - and thus this tax hits the hardest those who have the least. Because their consumption can hardly be reduced any further.
Embarrassing Ackermann finds the criticism and debate of capitalism. Presumably because he holds one of the honorable seats in the target area. The planned massive job cuts despite profits, on the other hand, are of course not embarrassing but completely justified. Says Ackermann. He is just not ashamed of anything ...
Various business associations also suffer from swollen heads: Working on Whit Monday again. We are supposed to work more so they can fleece us more. The fact that in reality German public holidays are not actually that many compared to the rest of Europe (among other things through clever solutions in Belgium, where public holidays that fall on Sundays are made up on the following weekday) is completely irrelevant. The fact that this year and last year there were significantly fewer public holidays due to employer-friendly dates is also irrelevant. The fact that, for example, last year was no better despite having significantly fewer public holidays than previous years is completely irrelevant.
The main thing is to open your mouth and make some noise ...
Bundesrat rejects GMO law - the Union wants us to eat GenFood and what the consequences are and whether, for example, organic farming near Gen-fields is no longer possible (because farmers cannot meet the strict requirements, since genetically modified plants do spread after all), they couldn't care less. The fact that most farmers don't value Genshit at all is also irrelevant. The fact that in the end only the big corporations win and are interested in the whole genetic technology - because they can strangle farmers and squeeze them even more - is probably not irrelevant. Because somewhere the donation millions must come from ...
Genetically modified foods serve the combination (forced combination!) of seeds and fertilizers or crop protection products and the patent protection of the use of the seeds. It directly attacks the classic traditional way of working of farmers - for example, the use of fruit for the next sowing is usually not possible (because infertile) or prohibited (by contract). There is no biological reason in Germany - neither do we have to endure extreme climatic conditions nor particularly catastrophic pest attacks. It is solely about the maximization of the companies that produce the genetically modified seeds.
If you then look at who is behind it, something else becomes apparent: another point is the elimination of the classic production sites for seeds - many of the genetic engineering companies are more associated with the pharmaceutical or chemical industry than with classical agriculture (although there are also black sheep among the seed producers - but these also belong more to the industry). Here, industry is simply moving into an area it could not serve before and wants to break into - ultimately with coercive means.
With genetically modified seeds, not only are foods produced whose consumption is rejected by the majority of consumers - an entire economic sector is also being strangled or possibly even destroyed. At least severely damaged.
Agriculture, through its structures with cooperatives, associations, interest groups and political lobbying, has a fairly large power and influence on its fate - so far. But now the bad guys want to play along, whose goal is exactly the takeover of this - previously self-managed - power.
Of course, the Union - which has repeatedly revealed itself to be industry-dependent - hitches itself to the cart. And of course, our industry chancellor performs this balancing act and Minister Künast has to present a law that is already watered down to the extreme - and even that is rejected in the council (which has a Union majority).
Stollwerck closes chocolate production - too bad.
Employers propose immediate program - one could also call it an "exploitation program". The industry dog has tasted blood ...